Talk:Interstate 440 (Tennessee)

Exit chart is B.S.

There are no exits above 6. The eastern terminus is the next egress after this where it merges into Interstate 40 east and Interstate 24. I don't know where the editor got the rest of that – it seems to be dervied from State Route 155/Briley Parkway as there was never a nothern loop of this I-440. This highway is placed where it is less for functional reasons – it was essentially obsolete before it was built – than because the former right-of-way of the bankrupt Tennessee Central Railroad was available for its construction. 2600:1004:B15D:B6F9:F81D:4E8F:44AC:9012 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 440 (Tennessee)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this article for GA. Expect comments soon. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• in Davidson County, Tennessee which runs through Nashville. for flow, I suggest changing this to which runs through Nashville, Tennessee. I would also question whether the county needs to be included in the first sentence of the lede. The first sentence of Interstate 840 (Tennessee) looks like a good example.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• It serves as a southern bypass around downtown Nashville, and is located on average about three miles (4.8 km) from the center of the city you previously mentioned that it is in Nashville so some words such as "Nashville" and "of the city" could be removed for conciseness.
  • Comment - The purpose of this sentence is to distinguish the route from outer bypass routes such as I-840 or I-269, and explain that while it is a bypass route, it is only a bypass for downtown Nashville, not the entire city. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Route description

• I wouldn't say the common reader knows what a gulch is, so worth wikilinking.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:REPEATLINK, you should add wikilinks for the first time mentioned after the lede. I'm specifically referring to other highways mentioned here.
  •  Done - moved links. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• You base most of this section off Google Maps (along with another source). Per WP:RSP, Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be treated preferentially to Google Maps and Google Street View. Also looking at this source makes me think that the whole section could just be some form of WP:OR considering none of the information is explicitly stated in the sources. I can't find any topic-specific guidelines relating to the use of Google Maps for route descriptions. I'm afraid I'm already leaning towards a GA fail based on this.
  • Comment - Willbb234, from looking at other GAs, Google Maps and state maps do appear to usually be acceptable sources for route descriptions, including locations and descriptions of terrain. However, I assume most of your concerns deal with interchange descriptions and nearby locations. However, some of this information is explicity stated in sources in the history section, and I can possibly find other sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really like it or agree with it, but I'll give some slack on this. I don't think it harms anyone or is bad for the project and thus I guess we can IAR here. That being said, if you can use another source, then please do. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll look for better sources for some of the information. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• when the interstate highway system needs capitals and wikilink to Interstate Highway System.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• routes around the city need to be more specific as Nashville isn't previously mentioned in this section.
  •  Fixed - changed to "routes around Nashville". - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• You need to clarify who TDOT are.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• demolition of many homes house instead of home; home has slightly different connotations.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• But traffic studies determined that the highway was necessary to relieve congestion on I-40. doesn't read well as a sentence. How about replacing 'But' with 'However,'?
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• the "Nashvillians Against I-440" filed Nashvillians Against I-440 v. Lewis who is Lewis here?
  •  Doing... - Pretty sure he was the TDOT commissioner, but will need to do a little more research. When I find the answer, should I add something like ", which named x, the commissioner of TDOT, as the defendant" ? - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Added - please let me know if there is any issue with the change. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Trucks were initially prohibited from using I-440 why was this?
  •  Added - this was because of residents concerned about noise pollution. Also added links to noise and air pollution above. - Bneu2013 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• The speed limit was initially 55 miles per hour (90 km/h).[9] This was increased to 65 mph (105 km/h) in July 2000, but reduced back to 55 mph in June 2005 after complaints from motorists. these two sentences can be combined into one.
  •  Done - please let me know if you have any problems with the change. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• This was necessitated by the fact that the overuse of the roadway had worn away the surface "the fact that" is usuallyan unnecessary phrase so I suggest changing this to This was nesessitated because the surface had been worn away due to overuse or something similar.
  •  Fixed -Bneu2013 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Despite these improvements, I-440 continued to develop potholes afterwards, no need for the word 'afterwards' here because it is implied in the first clause.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I can't see in this source that the contract was the most expensive in state history.
  • Comment - Willbb234, this is the wrong source. However, I am considering moving the information about the cost to a separate sentence because while this project was the most expensive individually awarded transportation contract in state history, it was not the most expensive project. I think the sentence should read something like "The reconstruction project cost $152.9 million, and was the most expensive individual contract awarded by TDOT in state history." Please tell me what you think of this.Bneu2013 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bneu2013: sounds fine. Please could I see the link so that I can read a bit more on this. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Willbb234: - this source. It also says the actual cost was nearly $2 million higher than the initial bid price; I'm going to replace with that figure.
        • @Willbb234: - I have made the changes. Please let me know what you think of them and if there are any issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @Bneu2013: sorry to be pedantic, but the source says that This milestone comes one month ahead of schedule for the largest project in TDOT history. I'm not sure if this means it was the most expensive, but we can't be sure. Perhaps you could use this source which states that The I-440 reconstruction is the largest and most expensive TDOT road project to date, totaling $155 million. Is this fine? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
            • @Willbb234:, yes, that should work. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• The external links section is empty. You should either add links or remove.
  •  Done - removed. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Article looks good. Appropriate images and sources are reliable. Let me know when you have fixed the rest of the issues. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Willbb234:, before you pass or fail the article, there is some more information that I am wondering if I should include. I will post them below. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I just discovered that the route has recently been designated the Debra K. Johnson Memorial Highway. I'm planning to list this in the lead, after "Four-Forty Parkway" and at the very end of the recent history and reconstruction section. Do you see any issue with this?
    • No issues. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is more information about the 1973 lawsuit needed, such as which court it was filed in?
    • I don't see any need for this. From what I have gathered, this is just some small, non-profit organisation and the case isn't notable enough to receive significant coverage. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One of the sources in the history section states that TDOT began most of their major prepartion for I-440 in 1964. Is this needed?
    • Could do with a mention. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done - Willbb234, I also rearranged some content in the planning section for clarity. More specifically, I moved the first sentence about controversies to the second paragraph so that it directly proceeds information about the controversies related to construction of I-440. I also moved the information about right-of-way acquisition to the first paragraph. Please let me know if there are still any issues. Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: okay, thanks very much for the thorough and prompt replies. I'll pass for GA now as I don't have any concerns and the article meets the criteria. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Willbb234: - Thanks for reviewing! Bneu2013 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)